Astus wrote:Also note that like in the case of Seung Sahn, mantras are only used as objects for meditation without any extra value, unlike in tantric teachings where mantras have a meaning.

Hi Astus,

The mantras and other practices were taught by Seung Sahn in two different ways. There is always the core zen aspect - cut-off deluded thoughts using whatever: mantras, dharanis, prostrations etc. But if necessary, he taught using particular mantras as remedies for specific problems. The same applies to other traditional practices - we bow to purify our karma but also as a way of practicing zen meditation. Yombul can be a regular prayer, for instance to help somebody or zen practice. So "don't know" is always the primary scope, but when needed all those subsidiary practices are evoked. It's pretty much the same approach that's presented in Seosan's works.

To definitely say whether it means that zen can be esoteric you'd have to define what is zen and what is esoteric in the first place. When talking about zen there is a tendency to "think Japanese", where you can easily assume that zen sects cover zen practices. There is soto, rinzai and obaku and what they do is a zen practice because they are zen schools. In Korea and China zen is a part of syncretic mahayana and drawing the lines is not so simple.

Astus wrote:Maitreya is the next buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma after a period of no Dharma. But while in early Buddhism the buddhas were primarily identified as the initiators of the teaching, later it stopped being the main criterion, therefore there can be infinite buddhas even at the same place.

but i think that i think that sakyamuni - and presumably any future buddha - is not just an especially important or perfect teacher because of the novelty of his teaching, his contribution in that sense. but i also think he was particularly able to root out suffering in others... aren't you struck in the sutras by the buddha in a way like no living person?yes the stories may be largely fictional and so i suppose then that's maybe just a restatement of the novelty of his teachings.

by which i mean that i don't think i agree that the initiators of the teaching are buddhas in the same sense as contemporary mahayana figures. is this not mahayana? are you sure that orthodox chan and zen teaches that its masters have climbed through the bhumis and to buddhahood - ending the rounds of rebirth just as the buddha did?

See how there are different perspectives and levels of the teaching. For an enemy of Buddhism a teacher is a charlatan deluding people. For a non-Buddhist a teacher is just an old fellow. For a king the head of a monastery is an influential figure. For a lay person full of devotion the master is a holy embodiment of the buddhas. For an educated lay person the abbot is a wise man. For a novice the preceptor is the strict but kind leader. For an aged monastic the master is a fellow practitioner. A good teacher addresses all these people accordingly. So a Chan teacher can be anything from a deluded ordinary person to a living buddha. So Linji said (same concept as Vimalakirti Sutra's inconceivable liberation):

"If someone comes and asks about seeking buddha, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of purity; if someone asks about bodhisattvahood, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of compassion; if someone asks me about bodhi, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of pure mystery; if someone asks me about nirvana, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of serene stillness. Though there be ten thousand different states, the person does not differ. Therefore,According with things he manifests a form,Like the moon [refl ecting] on the water."

and

"Virtuous monks, don’t acknowledge robes. Robes cannot move of themselves, but people can put them on. There is the robe of purity, the robe of birthlessness, the robe of bodhi, the robe of nirvana, the patriarch-robe, and the buddha-robe. Virtuous monks, these spoken words and written phrases are all nothing but changes of robes."

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Namdrol wrote:The ancient Chan masters are making the argument than the realization of emptiness is sufficient and there is not much reason to place a lot of emphasis on the path of cultivation (bhumis 1-10). Once in possession of the Gnosis of the path, that is the main point, and that is Buddhahood.

Nope, that's not the main point...this one is Seon though..:

“All sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, but because it is covered over by defilements, they do not know and do not see it.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 7)

“The thus-so Buddha-nature can only be known by a Buddha.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 7)

Comment: Since the Buddha-nature can only be seen by a Buddha who has eliminated all delusions, this is the supreme, correct awareness.

“The arhats do not see the Buddha-nature.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 27)

“Even though a bodhisattva has reached the tenth (of the ten stages), that bodhisattva still does not clearly see or know the Buddha-nature.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 8)

Comment: A bodhisattva, even at the tenth of the stages, still cannot clearly see the Buddha-nature because subtle delusions remain. Needless to say this also applies to arhats.

(...)

‘Successively cultivate the three sagely and ten saintly (stages)’ are evidently the words of doctrinal scholars, and so to call this (teaching an) advocacy of the Seon School of the separate transmission outside of the doctrine is ridiculous.

(...)

In the Mahayana sutras, the Avatamaska and the Mahaparinirvana, the Buddha says that the stage of the Buddha where delusions are all ended is seeing the nature, and that there is no need for further cultivation thereafter. In the Platform Sutra the Sixth Patriarch speaks in detail of inside and outside completely clarified as seeing the nature. He did not speak of further cultivation. Even in the oldest text, the Dunhuang version, one cannot find ideas about gradual cultivation.

Bojo said that the ten faiths that overlay the delusions are the seeing of the nature, and that the removal of the delusions is gradual cultivation. One can see that this contradicts the words of the Sixth Patriarch. To the extent that one says that the ten faiths that lie layer upon layer over the delusions are the seeing of the nature, to that extent one is wrong. (To the extent that one says that) one must not leave the delusions as they are, that inevitably means that naturally one pursues gradual cultivation. And thus one must know that this idea of gradual cultivation is clearly that of the doctrinal scholars and not that of the Seon School.

“Just like a clear-eyed person who (sees) all the masses of material objects (with his eyes) covered by light gauze, the bodhisattva of the ultimate stage likewise sees all percepts. Just like a clear-eyed person who has no obstructions (sees) all the masses of material forms, the Tathagata sees all percepts likewise.” (Yujialun 50)

Comment: As even the bodhisattva of the ultimate and tenth stage has remaining subtle delusions, they do not see the nature.

(...)

However, we must note that even though one has reached (the state of) not producing a single thought, if one remains with the non-production of a single thought that is a great death that cannot come to life and is not called seeing the nature.

i can believe that zen masters are buddhas. they are playing that part - so to speak. i can believe that bodhicitta is not some far off thing that it unrealizable for us normal fools. even that we're all bodhisattvas that are forgetting our profound vows just for fun.

but i don't know that i can believe that anyone since sakyamuni has fulfilled their vows and has no more work to do - in future lives i mean.probably not... so FWIW i barely believe, i mean am arguing, from a perspective of the middle way [between materialism and eternalism]. but yeah... not just that no-one has turned the wheel of the dharma since him, not that they don't have that level of *insight* but that they have cultivated themselves that perfectly.

there's a thread on ZFI about sakyamuni - if we are realists - probably not being all that perfect in conduct afterall. i strongly disagree with it [tho no debate was forthcoming.]; i think it misunderstands the potential of humanity and also what sort of people might make history - if that is the principle of enlightenment is a real one.#

i am ranting a bit here... when i actually so i can't believe i mean as yet; not that i can't be convinced!

if that ZFI thread - that i mentioned - was just saying that contemporary zen masters are no less than sakyamuni because both are equally as enlightened... then that might persuade me better - that, the courage to declare that one is indeed completely perfect. didn't sakyamuni do so?

idk. i want to return to something i've already ranted about

not just that no-one has turned the wheel of the dharma since him, not that they don't have that level of *insight* but that they have cultivated themselves that perfectly.

i suppose the point is that chan in its various forms doesn't teach cultivation per se. i think that if all we have to do to free ourselves from endless "rebirth" is to see we are not ignorant, then sure, zen masters are as much buddhas as sakyamuni - bar the turning the wheel of the dharma thingy. is there anything else - anything about buddhahood i've missed that might mean they do not qualify?? not miracles...

may i please ask: ok it is the orthodoxy that they are buddhas i am sorry for slandering anyone: but what about mind to mind transmission. what is it?? really??? ???

Zen teachers being equal to buddhas, only in the sense that mind is buddha and there is no buddha outside the mind. But it should be understood in the way that only those are true teachers of Zen who are enlightened to the buddha-mind, not the other way around that people bearing different titles are buddhas because of that.

Mind to mind transmission is the same as seeing nature, because Zen is not in words or concepts but enlightenment itself. Thus there is nothing transmitted. It is an organisational matter that official papers are also called mind to mind transmission while in fact they are not.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Astus wrote:not the other way around that people bearing different titles are buddhas because of that

yes!!

Zen teachers being equal to buddhas, only in the sense that mind is buddha and there is no buddha outside the mind. But it should be understood in the way that only those are true teachers of Zen who are enlightened to the buddha-mind

the question that i suppose one might want to ask is whether [you are trying to say that] zen teachers are enlightened to the buddha-mind in the exact same was as sakyamuni was. or to the same degree...

i have argued in the preceding posts that they, may, be. think that's all i had to say...

There are two approaches regarding the status of Zen teachers. One is that there is a bodhisattva path one takes on, you can find this view in the teachings of Zongmi, Jinul and Shengyan. The other is to point out that concepts of bodhisattvas and buddhahood are just concepts, it is mistaken to take them too seriously and one's better be a man of no affairs.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Astus wrote:There are two approaches regarding the status of Zen teachers. One is that there is a bodhisattva path one takes on, you can find this view in the teachings of Zongmi, Jinul and Shengyan. The other is to point out that concepts of bodhisattvas and buddhahood are just concepts, it is mistaken to take them too seriously and one's better be a man of no affairs.

were would you place songchul there?

i wouldn't, disagree, with what you have said. but i'm not sure that the two need be mutually exclusive, so i'm not sure that both are pure positions and that it's not just a matter of what to stress - at least outside what skillful means to use??

Do you mean Toeong Seongcheol and his view of sudden enlightenment, sudden practice? If so, while I have only minimal information on his teachings, he seems actually more like a teacher of gradual training to sudden enlightenment.

The two views mentioned can be merged into a single interpretation, and that's what Zongmi and Jinul did in their own ways. There is no need to take them as distant extremes or opposites. But it should still be recognised that it is possible to work only with one or the other, or create a hierarchical structure of them. Also, views emphasising a narrow path are usually more rhetoric than practical, while very diverse and complex interpretations tend to be rather theoretical than applicable.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

When one's Dharma karma is ripened, Buddha would say something and that person will become enlightened. But people like ourselves hehehehe might need a lot of work.

Buddhas don't distinguish or make distinctions. They only do so to address sentient beings' distinctions. There are different methods and teachings because sentient beings have different karma and therefore have different understandings, comparisons, and distinctions. That's why Buddhas address these differences with different methods such as Chan, Pure Land, Tantra, etc. But they are one in essence I believe once we understand the teachings.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Linjii―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―